Table 1: Tomato genotypes used in the study
Table 2: Digital features employed for assessing response of tomato genotypes to water stress
Figure 1: Differences in digital biomass percentage reduction among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 2: Differences in digital biomass percentage recovery among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress.Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 3: Top view area of tomato genotypes under stress and recovery conditions. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Plate 1: Top view images of tomato genotype IIHR 2843 depicting digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 4: Relationship between convex hull area and water lost in tomato under deficit water stress
Figure 5: Relationship between leaf area and compactness in tomato under deficit water stress
Table 3: The variations in relative water content, water potential andquantum efficiency of PSII in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 4: The differences in total osmolyte and MDA contents in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 5: Relationship between digital biomass and other digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 6: Digital biomass of IIHR 2195 and IIHR 2843 at 100% and 50% FC. Values are the means±SEM (n=3)
Table 1: Tomato genotypes used in the study
Table 2: Digital features employed for assessing response of tomato genotypes to water stress
Figure 1: Differences in digital biomass percentage reduction among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 2: Differences in digital biomass percentage recovery among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress.Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 3: Top view area of tomato genotypes under stress and recovery conditions. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Plate 1: Top view images of tomato genotype IIHR 2843 depicting digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 4: Relationship between convex hull area and water lost in tomato under deficit water stress
Figure 5: Relationship between leaf area and compactness in tomato under deficit water stress
Table 3: The variations in relative water content, water potential andquantum efficiency of PSII in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 4: The differences in total osmolyte and MDA contents in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 5: Relationship between digital biomass and other digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 6: Digital biomass of IIHR 2195 and IIHR 2843 at 100% and 50% FC. Values are the means±SEM (n=3)
Table 1: Tomato genotypes used in the study
Table 2: Digital features employed for assessing response of tomato genotypes to water stress
Figure 1: Differences in digital biomass percentage reduction among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 2: Differences in digital biomass percentage recovery among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress.Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 3: Top view area of tomato genotypes under stress and recovery conditions. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Plate 1: Top view images of tomato genotype IIHR 2843 depicting digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 4: Relationship between convex hull area and water lost in tomato under deficit water stress
Figure 5: Relationship between leaf area and compactness in tomato under deficit water stress
Table 3: The variations in relative water content, water potential andquantum efficiency of PSII in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 4: The differences in total osmolyte and MDA contents in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 5: Relationship between digital biomass and other digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 6: Digital biomass of IIHR 2195 and IIHR 2843 at 100% and 50% FC. Values are the means±SEM (n=3)
Table 1: Tomato genotypes used in the study
Table 2: Digital features employed for assessing response of tomato genotypes to water stress
Figure 1: Differences in digital biomass percentage reduction among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 2: Differences in digital biomass percentage recovery among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress.Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 3: Top view area of tomato genotypes under stress and recovery conditions. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Plate 1: Top view images of tomato genotype IIHR 2843 depicting digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 4: Relationship between convex hull area and water lost in tomato under deficit water stress
Figure 5: Relationship between leaf area and compactness in tomato under deficit water stress
Table 3: The variations in relative water content, water potential andquantum efficiency of PSII in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 4: The differences in total osmolyte and MDA contents in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 5: Relationship between digital biomass and other digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 6: Digital biomass of IIHR 2195 and IIHR 2843 at 100% and 50% FC. Values are the means±SEM (n=3)
Table 1: Tomato genotypes used in the study
Table 2: Digital features employed for assessing response of tomato genotypes to water stress
Figure 1: Differences in digital biomass percentage reduction among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 2: Differences in digital biomass percentage recovery among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress.Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 3: Top view area of tomato genotypes under stress and recovery conditions. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Plate 1: Top view images of tomato genotype IIHR 2843 depicting digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 4: Relationship between convex hull area and water lost in tomato under deficit water stress
Figure 5: Relationship between leaf area and compactness in tomato under deficit water stress
Table 3: The variations in relative water content, water potential andquantum efficiency of PSII in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 4: The differences in total osmolyte and MDA contents in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 5: Relationship between digital biomass and other digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 6: Digital biomass of IIHR 2195 and IIHR 2843 at 100% and 50% FC. Values are the means±SEM (n=3)
Table 1: Tomato genotypes used in the study
Table 2: Digital features employed for assessing response of tomato genotypes to water stress
Figure 1: Differences in digital biomass percentage reduction among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 2: Differences in digital biomass percentage recovery among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress.Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 3: Top view area of tomato genotypes under stress and recovery conditions. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Plate 1: Top view images of tomato genotype IIHR 2843 depicting digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 4: Relationship between convex hull area and water lost in tomato under deficit water stress
Figure 5: Relationship between leaf area and compactness in tomato under deficit water stress
Table 3: The variations in relative water content, water potential andquantum efficiency of PSII in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 4: The differences in total osmolyte and MDA contents in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 5: Relationship between digital biomass and other digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 6: Digital biomass of IIHR 2195 and IIHR 2843 at 100% and 50% FC. Values are the means±SEM (n=3)
Table 1: Tomato genotypes used in the study
Table 2: Digital features employed for assessing response of tomato genotypes to water stress
Figure 1: Differences in digital biomass percentage reduction among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 2: Differences in digital biomass percentage recovery among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress.Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 3: Top view area of tomato genotypes under stress and recovery conditions. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Plate 1: Top view images of tomato genotype IIHR 2843 depicting digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 4: Relationship between convex hull area and water lost in tomato under deficit water stress
Figure 5: Relationship between leaf area and compactness in tomato under deficit water stress
Table 3: The variations in relative water content, water potential andquantum efficiency of PSII in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 4: The differences in total osmolyte and MDA contents in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 5: Relationship between digital biomass and other digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 6: Digital biomass of IIHR 2195 and IIHR 2843 at 100% and 50% FC. Values are the means±SEM (n=3)
Table 1: Tomato genotypes used in the study
Table 2: Digital features employed for assessing response of tomato genotypes to water stress
Figure 1: Differences in digital biomass percentage reduction among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 2: Differences in digital biomass percentage recovery among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress.Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 3: Top view area of tomato genotypes under stress and recovery conditions. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Plate 1: Top view images of tomato genotype IIHR 2843 depicting digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 4: Relationship between convex hull area and water lost in tomato under deficit water stress
Figure 5: Relationship between leaf area and compactness in tomato under deficit water stress
Table 3: The variations in relative water content, water potential andquantum efficiency of PSII in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 4: The differences in total osmolyte and MDA contents in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 5: Relationship between digital biomass and other digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 6: Digital biomass of IIHR 2195 and IIHR 2843 at 100% and 50% FC. Values are the means±SEM (n=3)
Table 1: Tomato genotypes used in the study
Table 2: Digital features employed for assessing response of tomato genotypes to water stress
Figure 1: Differences in digital biomass percentage reduction among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 2: Differences in digital biomass percentage recovery among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress.Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 3: Top view area of tomato genotypes under stress and recovery conditions. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Plate 1: Top view images of tomato genotype IIHR 2843 depicting digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 4: Relationship between convex hull area and water lost in tomato under deficit water stress
Figure 5: Relationship between leaf area and compactness in tomato under deficit water stress
Table 3: The variations in relative water content, water potential andquantum efficiency of PSII in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 4: The differences in total osmolyte and MDA contents in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 5: Relationship between digital biomass and other digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 6: Digital biomass of IIHR 2195 and IIHR 2843 at 100% and 50% FC. Values are the means±SEM (n=3)
Table 1: Tomato genotypes used in the study
Table 2: Digital features employed for assessing response of tomato genotypes to water stress
Figure 1: Differences in digital biomass percentage reduction among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 2: Differences in digital biomass percentage recovery among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress.Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 3: Top view area of tomato genotypes under stress and recovery conditions. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Plate 1: Top view images of tomato genotype IIHR 2843 depicting digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 4: Relationship between convex hull area and water lost in tomato under deficit water stress
Figure 5: Relationship between leaf area and compactness in tomato under deficit water stress
Table 3: The variations in relative water content, water potential andquantum efficiency of PSII in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 4: The differences in total osmolyte and MDA contents in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 5: Relationship between digital biomass and other digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 6: Digital biomass of IIHR 2195 and IIHR 2843 at 100% and 50% FC. Values are the means±SEM (n=3)
Table 1: Tomato genotypes used in the study
Table 2: Digital features employed for assessing response of tomato genotypes to water stress
Figure 1: Differences in digital biomass percentage reduction among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 2: Differences in digital biomass percentage recovery among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress.Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 3: Top view area of tomato genotypes under stress and recovery conditions. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Plate 1: Top view images of tomato genotype IIHR 2843 depicting digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 4: Relationship between convex hull area and water lost in tomato under deficit water stress
Figure 5: Relationship between leaf area and compactness in tomato under deficit water stress
Table 3: The variations in relative water content, water potential andquantum efficiency of PSII in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 4: The differences in total osmolyte and MDA contents in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 5: Relationship between digital biomass and other digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 6: Digital biomass of IIHR 2195 and IIHR 2843 at 100% and 50% FC. Values are the means±SEM (n=3)
Table 1: Tomato genotypes used in the study
Table 2: Digital features employed for assessing response of tomato genotypes to water stress
Figure 1: Differences in digital biomass percentage reduction among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 2: Differences in digital biomass percentage recovery among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress.Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 3: Top view area of tomato genotypes under stress and recovery conditions. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Plate 1: Top view images of tomato genotype IIHR 2843 depicting digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 4: Relationship between convex hull area and water lost in tomato under deficit water stress
Figure 5: Relationship between leaf area and compactness in tomato under deficit water stress
Table 3: The variations in relative water content, water potential andquantum efficiency of PSII in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 4: The differences in total osmolyte and MDA contents in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 5: Relationship between digital biomass and other digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 6: Digital biomass of IIHR 2195 and IIHR 2843 at 100% and 50% FC. Values are the means±SEM (n=3)
People also read
Research Article
Quantification and Characterization of Urban Solid Waste and Its Ecological Accounting in Manali City of Hilly Region
Nikita, R. K. Aggarwal, S. K. Bhardwaj and M. K. BrahmiBiodegradable non-biodegradable, characterization, ecological footprint, solid waste, quantification
Published Online : 20 Oct 2020
Editorial
Few Innovative Findings in Plant and Crop Science
Ratikanta MaitiPublished Online : 07 Oct 2016
Effect of Moisture Stress and Growth Regulators on Growth and Yield of Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)
A. Sen, D. Panda, D. C. Ghosh and K. PramanikAscophyllum nodosum extract, growth regulator, moisture stress, Triacontanol
Published Online : 07 Dec 2012
Effect of Seed Priming on Seedling Vigour and Yield of Tomato and Chilli
Ratikanta Maiti, Dasari Rajkumar, Mangalarapu Jagan, K. Pramanik and P. VidyasagarHalopriming, hydropriming, seedling vigour, yield, tomato, chilli
Published Online : 07 Jun 2013
Trends in Beneficial and Pathogenic Bacterial Populations and their Relation with Environmental Parameters in Tiger Shrimp, Penaeus monodon Culture Ponds
P. K. Patil, M. Muralidhar, H. G. Solanki, Krishna Patel, C. Gopal and S. M. PillaiPenaeus monodon, nutrient recycling bacteria, Vibrio spp.
Published Online : 07 Jun 2013
Plankton Diversity in Litopenaeus vannamei Cultured Ponds
R. Saraswathy, M. Muralidhar, P. Ravichandran, N. Lalitha, V. Kanaga Sabapathy and A. NagavelLitopenaeus vannamei, plankton abundance, diversity, seasonal changes
Published Online : 07 Jun 2013
.jpg)
.jpg)
